"letters have to be less themselves for boumas to be more themselves."
Aah – the big legibility/readability difference. Good food for thought.

Manuscripts are loaded with them. I have given you enough info go look for yourself. Edward Johnston wrote of them, and their history, in the early 1900's so I think that precedes Roger!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72847950/Writing-Illuminating-Lettering-Edward...

I believe Johnston starts on Versals around page 119. This book is from the early 1900's. I believe these pages were done around 1903.

So I guess I was not wrong, huh!

Oh, and Zapf and a host of others were doing them before Excoffon. They appear in many books, printed about calligraphers, in the 1800's. The Russians, Estonians and Finnish had a real affection for them.

Actually they preceded the 14th century!

Thanks for the link. But I have to say that's not the same thing - it just shows the drafting of outlines (which obviously has been happening for centuries). The main idea in this thread (to me) is the free-form chirographic rendering of outlines; sort of how chirographers think of the black, but applied to the outline (which has no thickness). One thing to look for is "funny" crossings of outlines (and not the sort that happens when you're marking the black - like the "o" in Peter's example).

But more potential examples would be great. The thing is if you have a point to make I think you should make the effort to provide evidence. I don't go on a wild-goose chase when I can't even hear the goose.

hhp

It is exactly the same thing. Their work was functional, not experimental. It is the same principle. Your condescension towards me shows you laziness and inability to see the forest for the trees.

If I may attempt to moderate:

I think it is possible to acknowledge Michael's point that writing outlines of letters, i.e. suggesting structures by visualising the edges of stems instead of stroking them, is an old method that is familiar to anyone who has studied formal lettering. At the same time, within the varieties of forms producible by this method, there are distinctions to be made, as in stroked letters, between formal, constructed letters and informal, cursive letters, and Hrant is talking about the latter. Now, given that distinction, which requires one to look at how a thing is made as well as what it looks like, I'd say that Peter's Helmut Salden example, despite its flamboyance, is actually an example of the formal, constructed letter and hence, as Michael, says exactly the same sort of beast as the traditional versal letter. Okano's Quintet, on the other hand, is clearly distinct in that the outline is cursive. I do think Hrant is getting a little over excited, but that's his wont. :)

Thanks John. There is the distinction between free form drawing/painting that Hrant is always trying to ascribe to what I do and what I really do. Calligraphy is not painting as he has asserted in his previous posts. And the distinction between what he has done, in his protoglyph (whatever the heck that is/means), is largely the difference between interpretive and formal calligraphy, i.e. Versals.

protoglyph

Word of the day.

n.

John, agreed. On all points. :-)

What's ironic Michael is that I've finally found a way that chirography might make sense to me but that's not good enough either.

hhp

... as opposed to what I really do. That is what I meant to say.

Calligraphy Hrant... DON'T offend me at every opportunity with "your" chosen nomenclature (meant solely to rankle my ire) and maybe things might go a bit smoother. And stop playing the victim. If you want to have a serious dialog treat people with respect and you might find them a bit more responsive and helpful.

Michael,
This reminds me of yet another technique with flat pen that I learned 50 years ago from Howard Glasser but forgot the proper name. The technique uses a flat pen but doubles the stroke. As I understood it, it was used to make very large letters which would not be practical with a pen of that era. Today, steel brushes do it with ease. Back then, the user could double the weight of a single pen stroke but increase the stroke contrast as desired. Any clue as to the name of the technique?

Chris... you may have been using COIT pens, or a variation of them. Howard was a true innovator, a real sweetheart. A giant, wasn't he! The Coit was probably very popular at the time... centuries ago when you studied with Howard. :-) There were also "automatic pens" (manufacturer name) around that time. They were used by Gruskin, Baker and Freeman.

Michael,
I have not made myself clear, sorry. The technique I am trying to describe can be done with any flat pen. It was not a mounting of two pens together to draw a double stroke. It was drawing the two strokes one after the other. It was done with Roman Capitals.

Was it a "split" pen Chris, sorry, forgot to ask!

That would have been Versals. :-) Howard is steeped in tradition... especially the "Irish" continuation of Uncial/Versal.

My intent isn't to make you froth at the mouth. I really don't care.

hhp

Neither do I Hrant. But if you wish to carry on a civil discourse do not be so arrogant, condescending and discourteous.

If you truly want to know something that is way out of your realm, ask nicely instead of making everything so contentious.

Notice, I was having no problems with anyone else in this thread.

Stop stalking me.

hhp

You flatter yourself!

EDIT:
The odd thing is I found your drawing interesting/refreshing, and it is reminiscent of things that are occurring, and have been for some time, in the calligraphic field. GSE Briem in the early 80's etc. So I thought it would be interesting to add the calligraphic side to it, since that is where it emanated from. Far be it from me to stop you from shooting yourself in the foot in the pursuit of knowledge.

Sumner Stone did some of these experiments in the late 70's. You may want to check those out also if you can get past your ego and paranoia.

Okay, now how about a 9.

I'll be back around groundhogs day, 2017.